This week in terrorism history: Jan. 27-Feb. 2

Reem Salah Riyashi, mother of two, and Palestinian suicide bomber. (Credit: Getty Images)

Sometimes, when I look at the possible incidents that I could include in this feature, interesting commonalities pop out. This is one such week.

Suicide bombings are nothing new in the mix of incidents for any given week. But for this week, three such cases (and their may in fact be more) involve female suicide bombers. While there is a long history of women involved in terrorism, as scholar Mia Bloom has pointed out in her groundbreaking work on the subject, the average person is often still surprised when women perpetrate acts of terror. This is especially true for suicide bombing.

While historically women had mostly played supporting roles in terrorist movements and campaigns, Bloom in 2007 writes:

Women are now taking a leading role in conflicts by becoming suicide bombers – using their bodies as human detonators for the explosive material strapped around their waists. …

Out of the approximately seventeen groups that have started using the tactical innovation of suicide bombing, women have been operatives in more than half of them. Between 1985 and 2006, there have been in excess of 220 women suicide bombers, representing about 15 percent of the total. Moreover, the upsurge in the number of female bombers has come from both secular and religious organizations, even though religious groups initially resisted using women.

Their participation in suicide bombings starkly contradicts the theory that women are more likely to choose peaceful mechanisms for conflict resolution than men are — that women are inherently more disposed toward moderation, compromise, and tolerance in their attitudes toward international conflict.

As with men, Bloom writes, the motives for women to become suicide bombers vary. Some, like Tamil and Chechen suicide operatives, are driven by a desire to seek revenge, either for the oppression and suffering of their people, or more personally, to avenge the death of loved ones at the hands of their own government. Others may seek to change their society’s gender norms through their involvement in terrorism. In short, Bloom argues, gender empowerment through violence, in these cases, suicide terrorism.

Groups, she writes, choose women to carry out suicide missions for very practical reasons. First, it can be a tactical response to the need for more manpower. At the same time, in many settings, women are also less likely to be stopped and searched by security forces than men, making it easier for them to reach their preferred targets. Finally, Bloom notes, groups have found that attacks carried out by women often generate greater media coverage, multiplying the publicity effects of an attack.

This discussion helps us think about something that I try to get across to my students. In understanding terrorism it is important for us to consider not just the strategic and tactical choices that groups make, like the decision to adopt suicide methodologies at all, but also the motivations of the individuals who become terrorists. While both sets of motivations can be described as rational, that rationality stems from very different sets of calculations.

And now on to this week’s examples:

  • Jan. 27, 2002 — Jerusalem: An attack carried out by female suicide bomber from Fatah kills one and injures more than 150.
  • Jan. 29, 2982 — Belfast, Northern Ireland: Gunmen from the Irish National Liberation Army assassinate John McKeague, a protestant political activist.
  • Jan. 30, 2010 — Kahr, Afghanistan: A female suicide bomber kills 14 civilians and three soldiers. No group claims responsibility.
  • Feb. 1, 2009 — Baghdad: A female suicide bomber kills 46 Shia pilgrims.
  • Feb. 2, 1992 — Mahima, Bangladesh: Fourteen people are killed and 10 injured in the bombing of a ferry by the group Shanti Bahini, the armed wing of the Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti, a political organization agitating for greater rights for the indigenous peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh.

This week in terrorism history: Jan 20-26

Bernardine Dohrn, leader of the Weather Underground.

Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, when the United States celebrates the life of the slain civil rights icon. King was assassinated in April 1968. In June, 1963, King was in Detroit, where he delivered an early draft of what would become his famous “I Have a Dream” speech at Cobo Hall.

The Detroit version of the speech includes the elements we remember today from his powerful address at the March on Washington two months later. But the Detroit speech is also noteworthy for King’s emphasis on the essential strategy of nonviolence to advance the cause of civil rights. It is worth quoting that section at some length:

Now the other thing that we must see about this struggle is that by and large it has been a nonviolent struggle. … For we’ve come to see the power of nonviolence. We’ve come to see that this method is not a weak method, for it’s the strong man who can stand up amid opposition, who can stand up amid violence being inflicted upon him and not retaliate with violence. …

This method has wrought wonders. As a result of the nonviolent Freedom Ride movement, segregation in public transportation has almost passed away absolutely in the South. As a result of the sit-in movement at lunch counters, more than 285 cities have now integrated their lunch counters in the South. I say to you, there is power in this method.

And I think by following this approach it will also help us to go into the new age that is emerging with the right attitude. For nonviolence not only calls upon its adherents to avoid external physical violence, but it calls upon them to avoid internal violence of spirit. It calls on them to engage in that something called love. And I know it is difficult sometimes. When I say “love” at this point, I’m not talking about an affectionate emotion. It’s nonsense to urge people, oppressed people, to love their oppressors in an affectionate sense. I’m talking about something much deeper. I’m talking about a sort of understanding, creative, redemptive goodwill for all men. 

I quote this from King’s speech because it stands in stark contrast to the words of Bernardine Dohrn, one of the leaders of the Weather Underground, who less than a year after King’s assassination was engaged in an unapologetically violent struggle to overthrow the government of the United States. Speaking in front of a phalanx of television cameras in 1969, Dorhn said:

There’s no way to be committed to non-violence in the middle of the most violent society history has ever created. I’m not committed to non-violence in any way.

This kind of justification, blaming circumstances, or their opponents, for their decision to take up arms, is typical of groups that adopt violence as a means to advance their preferred political or social ends. All of the groups and individuals highlighted in this space all, at some point, came to the same realization about their particular cause. It is worth thinking about on a day when America celebrates an apostle of nonviolence.

And now, on to this week’s list.

  • Jan. 20, 1994 — Pamplona, Greece: A bomb is discovered and defused at the offices of UNK bank. No one is injured in the incident. The bomb is attributed to the Basque separatist group ETA (Basque Fatherland and Freedom).
  • Jan. 21, 1978 — Thessalonika, Greece: A bomb explodes, damaging offices of the US Information Agency. No one is killed or injured. There is no claim of responsibility.
  • Jan. 21, 2009 — Brockton, Mass.: A white supremacist, Keith Luke, shoots three black immigrants from Cape Verde, killing two, as part of what was a planned racially motivated killing spree. Luke, who told police that he was “fighting for a dying race,” was convicted of the killings in 2013 and died in prison in 2014, apparently by suicide.
  • Jan. 22, 2012 — Tafawa Balewa, Nigera: Suspected Boko Haram gunmen attack a police station in Bauchi state. Nine are killed and another 10 wounded. This was one of several attacks carried out on the same day across Bauchi state.
  • Jan. 25, 1978 — Milan, Italy: Red Brigades gunmen carry out an attempted assassination of the labor relations supervisor at a Siemens Telecommunications plant near Milan. The target survives the attack.

photo above

This week in terrorism history: Jan. 13-19

Northern Ireland Catholic civil rights activist and MP Bernadette Devlin McAliskey (left) survived an assassination attempt by UFF gunmen, Jan. 16, 1981.

Last week I found myself on more than one occasion bringing up in conversation the 1993 failed attempt to destroy the World Trade Center. While the bomb went off beneath the North Tower, the explosion failed to bring the structure, and its twin, down as intended. Six people died and more than a thousand were injured in the attack.

As I told my students last week, in the 1993 attack investigators were able to identify and apprehend most of the conspirators when one of their number, Mohammed Salameh, returned to a Jersey City, NJ, Ryder truck rental office to try to recover the deposit he had put down on the truck which carried the bomb. That led to his arrest, and then to the others.

Twenty-four years ago this week, one of the primary conspirators in that effort, the Egyptian cleric Omar Abdel-Rahman was sentenced to life in prison for his part in the plot. The attack on the WTC was only part of the holy war that he had intended to help launch.

In October 1995, Rahman, along with nine others, was convicted of a broad conspiracy to carry out a “day of terror” across New York City, five bombs that were intended to destroy the United Nations headquarters, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington Bridge, and 26 Federal Plaza, the US government’s main office building in the city. The evidence in the trial included testimony from a government informant, secret audio recordings, and a video tape showing defendants mixing diesel oil and ammonium nitrate fertilizer in a Queens, NY, garage, ingredients that were to make up one of the bombs.

So with that quick bit of added background, here’s this week’s look back.

  • Jan. 13, 2015 — Volnovakha, Ukraine: Assailants fire a rocket-propelled grenade into a civilian bus near a military checkpoint, killing 12 and injuring another 11. The attack is attributed to militants of the Donetsk People’s Republic.
  • Jan. 16, 1981 — Coalisland, Northern Ireland: Members of the Ulster Freedom Fighters, a loyalist paramilitary group, carry out a failed assassination attempt on Catholic civil rights activist and Member of Parliament Bernadette Devlin McAliskey and her husband. Both are wounded in the attack, which took place in the family’s home while it was under surveillance by British soldiers. The troops did not intervene to prevent the attack, and waited more than 30 minutes before summoning ambulances to the scene.
  • Jan. 17, 1996 — United States: Omar Abdel-Rahman, known as the “Blind Sheihk,” is sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City. He died in prison in February 2017 at the age of 78.
  • Jan. 17, 2002 — Spain: ETA militants send a mail bomb to Enrique Ibarra, vice president of Grupo Correo in the Basque region of Spain. No one is injured in the attack.
  • Jan. 19, 1977 — New York City: Members of a Puerto Rican separatist group called the Independent Armed Revolutionary Commandos carry out a firebomb attack on an FBI office. This was one of four separate attacks in New York City carried out by the group on the same day.

Maybe Ken Waltz was right

(Credit: Emad Hajjaj)
(Credit: Emad Hajjaj)

 

While we were distracted earlier this week by the Michael Cohen show on Capitol Hill and the failed Trump-Kim love fest in Hanoi, two nuclear-armed rivals tiptoed up to the brink of war and then … stepped back.

On Tuesday, India launched airstrikes into Pakistan, targeting a training camp belonging to the terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed, in retaliation for a suicide bombing on Feb. 14 that killed 40 Indian soldiers on the outskirts of the city of Srinagar, in the Indian-controlled territory of Kashmir. JeM is a Kashmiri separatist group sponsored by the Pakistani government.

A day later, Pakistani jets crossed into Indian territory, then shot down at least one of the Indian fighters that scrambled in pursuit. The pilot was captured by Pakistani forces. Amid all this, news reports indicated that both sides had activated and reinforced their heavy armor formations along the Line of Control that separates Indian from Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. Troops exchanged fire across the border.

By Thursday, leaders on both sides began to acknowledge just how much danger everyone was in:

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan said in a televised address that the two sides could not afford a miscalculation “given the weapons we have”.

“We should sit down and talk,” he said.

“If we let it happen, it will remain neither in my nor [Indian Prime Minister] Narendra Modi’s control.

“Our action is just to let them know that just like they intruded into our territory, we are also capable of going into their territory,” he added.

Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj also said “India does not wish to see further escalation of the situation.”

Today, Pakistan handed their captured Indian pilot over to his own government. The crisis seems to have abated.

So what does this episode tell us? It might tell us that nuclear deterrence actually works.

India and Pakistan each have about 140 nuclear weapons that can be delivered by short or medium-range missiles, cruise missiles, or aircraft. Both are working to develop submarine launched nuclear missile systems. Both countries’ nuclear doctrines emphasize deterrence, promising to deliver an unacceptable level of punishment against anyone that dares attack.

Forty years ago, political scientist Kenneth Waltz argued that nuclear arsenals like these would have the desired effect of forcing caution on states that might otherwise be tempted to escalate a crisis like this week’s between India and Pakistan to full scale war. I wrote about this a month ago in the context of discussing North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

Given the catastrophic damage that nuclear weapons can inflict, even if used in relatively small numbers, Waltz writes that nuclear weapons make “both sides more cautions and the tensions between them less likely to lead to anything more than a skirmish.” Miscalculation, which Waltz rightly says has historically been an important precipitant of war, become less likely under such conditions due to the disastrous consequences of getting it wrong.

Put it all together, and nuclear-armed rivals like India and Pakistan have every reason to quickly de-escalate any crisis that threatens to get out of hand. India and Pakistan have fought three major wars since each won independence from Britain in 1947, two of them over the disputed territory of Kashmir. But since both became nuclear weapons states, their clashes, while troubling, have stayed contained.

When my students read Waltz’s arguments on the virtues of nuclear weapons, they often come away doubting the logic. And it stands to reason. Our human sensibility argues strongly that the last thing we should want is to see more of these weapons in the world. And yet, we have to acknowledge the reality that nuclear weapons, so far, have only been used in anger once. By us. Before any other countries had these weapons.

More nuclear weapons in the hands of more countries has not led to more use of nuclear weapons. So maybe Kenneth Waltz was right. Maybe nuclear proliferation is good.